Prof. R. Sarabia - University of Toronto Academic Librarians

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:03:09 -0400
From: Rosa Sarabia
Reply-To: Rosa Sarabia
Subject: Re: Message from Provost re: UTFA Negotiations
To: Provost
Cc: bargaining@utfa.org, angela.hildyard@utoronto.ca
Dear Cheryl Misak,
In my capacity as UTFA representative for Constituency #109 and as
faculty, I am responding to your email on UTFA negotiation, Sept.
16th, 2012.
I strongly believe that UTFA is acting in full representation of its
membership, through a democratic and transparent process. I, therefore,
support UTFA's proposal to make all terms and conditions of faculty and
librarian employment negotiable in a fair, rigorous, and comprehensive
way. None of the constituents whom I represent questioned such proposal
while many approached me by expressing their endorsement.
In view of what happened last year regarding the proposed School of
Languages and Literatures and the merging and/or closing down of other
units at the Faculty of Arts and Science, I have serious doubts about
the way the Administration defines transparency, consultation and
collegial decision-making. The administration has now the opportunity
to reverse last year's crisis and instil confidence by agreeing to
transform the outdated Memorandum of Agreement into a fully dynamic and
fair arrangement in which all terms and conditions can be bargained.
All best,
Rosa Sarabia
Professor
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Provost :
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you are no doubt aware, the University is again in negotiations
> with the Faculty Association. UTFA has made it clear that they want
> radical changes to the Memorandum of Agreement, in particular to
> require the use of mediation/arbitration for the development and
> implementation of academic policies and processes. They have
> circulated those proposals widely. It is important that all of our
> colleagues are aware of what is being proposed and the impact the
> changes would have on the University and on the working lives of
> each and every faculty member and librarian. Hence, over the next
> few weeks, you will receive a number of short position pieces on the
> changes UTFA has proposed. These will be distributed by PDAD&C
> memo and collected on the Provost's website.
> (http://www.provost.utoronto.ca)
> In the first set of communications, each of our Vice Provosts will
> be speaking to an aspect of UTFA's proposals. As many of you will
> know, this vice provostial group includes colleagues who are
> excellent scholars and committed university teachers. Among them
> are the former dean of a strong single-department faculty and the
> past chairs of two of our fine departments in the Faculty of Arts

and Science, one from the humanities and the other from the physical
> sciences. Their responses will not be managerial exercises from a
> collection of 'professional administrators'. Rather, their pieces
> will be informed by considerable experience at the academic
> coalface and years of working in consultation and collaboration
> with their departmental colleagues to help build this University
> into the great institution it currently is. I very much hope that
> these communications engage the community in debate and
> discussion. Comments from colleagues are very welcome - send to
> provost@utoronto.ca.
> I will take the opportunity to offer a brief preface to each of
> these communications. At this point, let me just say that the
> Memorandum of Agreement with UTFA has enabled the University to
> become one of the world's great public institutions of higher
> learning and advanced research. It of course is the case that the
> Memorandum requires and in fact undergoes review and updating. In
> the last round of negotiations, for instance, UTFA pressed the
> University to change the Memorandum by adding a workload policy to
> the salary and benefits process. This proposal was carefully
> considered, Academic Board was consulted, and the policy was
> negotiated and adopted in good faith. I must note, however, that a
> number of faculty and academic administrators have already commented
> that the new approach is itself a source of increased workload and
> bureaucracy.
> Most academic processes at the University of Toronto rely heavily on
> peer review and collegial decision-making. Such local
> decision-making has always been viewed as fundamental to this and to
> any other great university. To hand ultimate control over matters
> such as academic planning and criteria for tenure and promotion to
> an external arbitrator would be, in my view, a betrayal of our core
> values. Interest arbitration is an adversarial hearing, rather
> than a collegial process. It tends to be based on compromise,
> rather than on principle. As noted, our initial experience with
> the workload policy has already raised yellow flags with the
> colleagues on the ground. Workload at least can be positioned as
> sitting side-by-side with salary and benefits. However, the
> further that arbitrators move into core academic matters, the
> higher the risk that negotiation and arbitration will lead to an
> unworkable and inflexible set of bureaucratic rules that have the
> long-term effect of seriously impeding disciplinary and
> departmental autonomy
> Whatever your views and concerns, I encourage you to get engaged in
> these debates. Collegial deliberation is essential to ensure that
> these issues are discussed fully and broadly and that, in turn, is
> essential to the University of Toronto's continuing on its
> trajectory of excellence as a community of scholars.
> Cheryl Misak
> Professor of Philosophy
> Vice President and Provost
> University of Toronto